GR L 74513; (August, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-74513 August 19, 1988
HERMINIO TORIBIO, Doing Business Under the Name and Style BERGMANN’S FOOD INDUSTRY, petitioner, vs. HON. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ROGELIO SIMON, WILLIAM ALARCON, IRENEO DE LOS SANTOS, ABSALON FUTOL and EDMUNDO GUMBA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Herminio Toribio, operating Bergmann’s Food Industry, employed private respondents Rogelio Simon, William Alarcon, Ireneo de los Santos, Absalon Futol, and Edmundo Gumba for periods ranging from approximately three to four years. In June 1983, the employees filed a complaint for non-payment of separation pay, among other monetary claims. Despite several scheduled hearings before the Labor Arbiter, the petitioner repeatedly failed to appear. Consequently, the Arbiter deemed petitioner to have waived his right to present evidence and decided the case based on the parties’ position papers.
The Labor Arbiter awarded separation pay to all five employees, dismissing their other claims. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed this decision. Petitioner now contests the award, arguing that respondents Futol and Gumba voluntarily resigned in 1982, while Simon, Alarcon, and de los Santos were merely temporarily laid off in May 1983 due to the seasonal nature of the noodle business, which relies on sunlight for drying. He contends the layoff was a bona fide suspension of operations not exceeding six months under Article 287 of the Labor Code, which does not terminate employment, thus negating any entitlement to separation pay.
ISSUE
Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the award of separation pay to the private respondents.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion and upheld the award of separation pay. The legal logic rests on the failure of the petitioner to substantiate his defenses with credible evidence. Regarding the claim of voluntary resignation by Futol and Gumba, the Court found the only supporting evidence was a self-serving affidavit from the company’s operation manager, which carried little probative value. Petitioner thus failed to discharge the burden of proving abandonment or resignation.
Concerning the alleged temporary layoff of the other three employees, the Court found no evidence on record that the company had ever suspended operations or temporarily laid off workers during the employees’ continuous four-year tenure. Critically, there was also no proof that the company attempted to re-employ them after the purported layoff, even after the passage of the six-month period cited in Article 287 of the Labor Code. The petitioner’s unsubstantiated claim of a seasonal operation was insufficient to overturn the factual findings of the labor tribunals. The award of one month’s pay for every year of service was correct under the applicable labor provisions. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.